Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[Crapstone]

Just a quick question and suggestion. Does anyone know if all these cases are 'last resorts', to do with arrears and possession? If so wouldn't a person not under that threat be best placed to fight against the deeds being unsigned? That would eliminate the money and asset aspect and just concentrate it more on the paperwork. Any thoughts?

[Crapstone]

Jotho,

 

Acceptance is a part of contract law that you can't escape and that doesn't need a signature because your actions are enough. You've made payments and taken the money they offered.

[Crapstone]

FWIW I still don't think there is any weight in the argument of deeds in the long or short term and I'm not as yet hearing anything that changes that view.

[jotho]

Many thanks for this Apple. I am now thinking perhaps the only point of going to the oral hearing would be to try and persuade the judge that granting the PO based on the outcome of a future trial is prejudicial. I will leave that issue for now as I don't want to clutter the thread.

 

I don't think your points are incorrect - I am just having a few problems adjusting from all the research I absorbed leading up to possession hearing to the new prospect of challenging the deed. As the original judge who ordered the document trial has disallowed me to use s.2 I am now thinking perhaps he did me a favour. I shall now have to focus on this different approach and start from the beginning. They are going to want my arguments pretty soon. The big problem I still have is forcing myself to accept they can just switch documents with no repercussions. That is terrifying and seems just bonkers as it would leave it so open to abuse. Surely the courts would be full of people thrashing out unverifiable details of their loan offers. Everyone I know signed their offers.

 

Just another aside - I set up a payment to them of £20 pm with an Official Offer letter saying this was in full satisfaction of all obligations on my account. They have been accepting this but writing me letters saying it is unacceptable. I have noticed they are nervous about this as well but the judge wasn't interested anyway.

 

I am going to spend some time now delving into all the research and try to focus what is left of my brain on this new challenge. I totally take on board this has to be done right. Thanks to everyone.

 

Jo

[jotho]

Crapstone - In view of this do you think my Official Offer payments have any relevance? (in my above post to Apple). As I say they've been accepting them for 10 months now yet keep telling me they are "unacceptable". The intent was to do just what you mention - establish a new contract through acceptance.

 

Jo

[jotho]

Apple this is now really confusing me. This is all I have been arguing at court. That the supporting documents need to comply, not the deed. If this were the case I would have succeeded and thousands of others arguing s.2 as the lenders certainly never sign the offers. In my case no one did.

Jo

[jotho]

Hi Is It Me

 

It is worth mentioning that the mortgage offer - acts as the 'simple contract' - offer - consideration - acceptance - and that section 2 LP(MP) Act applies to it - along with the statute of frauds Act 1677....

 

But I would keep this brief tomorrow - because you are asking the Judge for time to outline your case in full before a High Court Judge (not a chancery) or the Adjudicator... when these issues can be addressed more fully

 

Apple

 

Sorry Apple. I'm getting used to the posting system. I meant the last post "This is really confusing me..." to be attached to this one of yours.

[citizenB]

enfircer - can you please either provide a link or let us know where you obtained it so we can provide a link. We prefer that you do not copy and paste huge chunks of text from other sources without credit. !

[bhall]

FWIW I still don't think there is any weight in the argument of deeds in the long or short term and I'm not as yet hearing anything that changes that view.

 

I must be getting old, I had to google FWIW ;-)

 

I am sure the decisions of the Property Chamber with regard to the two cases held last week will be posted in this thread in due time - It would appear from the responses previously posted by UNRAM and IS IT ME? from the Property Chamber that the decision of those two cases may be applied to the remaining (as of the date of the FOI response request) 7 applications and any subsequent applications. Therefore, the Property Chamber should be writing to the remaining applicants very shortly, to at the very least to notify them of the findings of the Property Chamber in those cases.

 

 

the matters raised un this application have been raised in a NUMBER of other applications recently s108 applications made to the chamber. This is the first application( you have to ask why) and is the only one (so far ) a response has been made and filed, as well as an application to strike out by the respondents.

Of the other applications the tribunal would prefer to stay the applications with a view to disseminating a decision once there has ben a hearing, it is possible that a number of cases will be heard at the same time.

Then asks to lists dates to avoid, I will be able to go in January and asked for t 2 day listing.

 

 

I have received notice from the Property Chamber my application is going forward and I have been ORDERED to send a copy of the application and all supporting documentation to the lender. The lender is ORDERED to respond within one calendar month. I will scan the documents if there is some way of getting them to you.

 

They have indicated that there is going to be a group tribunal in London in November or December.

 

This is exact wording of the reply...

 

"The tribunal has received a number of similar applications which appear to be based on draft pleadings which are circulating on the internet. In the interests of efficient case management the Tribunal is in the process of identifying a number of cases to be heard at an oral hearing, with the intention of circulating a decisions for consideration in future applications, with a view to saving court time and the resources of litigants on both sides. The applicant should be aware that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, provide an indemnity, or award damages or, on an application under s108(2) Land Registration Acts 2002, make an order for alteration of the register. The Tribunal anticipates that this application might be one of those applications listed to be heard, subject to any representations by either party. Any such representation should be filed and served by 5pm 7th November 2013."

 

Whilst I consider it very unlikely, for the sake of the applicant's, I hope it is a positive outcome

 

Ben

[applecart]

Sorry Apple. I'm getting used to the posting system. I meant the last post "This is really confusing me..." to be attached to this one of yours.

 

Yes, it is confusing me too

 

Is It Me's friends situation did not concern an argument to do with s.2.......???

 

The mind boggles......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Just a quick question and suggestion. Does anyone know if all these cases are 'last resorts', to do with arrears and possession? If so wouldn't a person not under that threat be best placed to fight against the deeds being unsigned? That would eliminate the money and asset aspect and just concentrate it more on the paperwork. Any thoughts?

 

Hi Crapstone.... I think you make an exce;lent point here....

 

Making applications to the Tribunal is open to any proprietor who believes there may be an issue with the validity of the deed. There are said to be some 11.3 million borrowers who may all fit the criteria.

 

It matters not whether the Borrower has an SPO or not......I would have thought that an application that does not concern an SPO is likely to proceed much quicker for those who do not have to overcome an SPO as an issue.

 

In fact 'BigPhil' has posted a link that gives information to do with the Governments upcoming consultation on selling off HMLR to the biggest bidder.......I think Borrowers who are 'sitting on the fence' had best consider their options in the event it is sold on.....and what effect the sale of HMLR is likely to have should they dither too long in making a decision to make an application....(just my thoughts).

 

So, yes.....Borrowers without an SPO could more 'frame' their grounds on the paperwork as you say....they will need to be sure of what they want to say and why they believe they have grounds of success of course.......the lender will not just lie back without a fight simply because the borrower does not have an SPO......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Crapstone - In view of this do you think my Official Offer payments have any relevance? (in my above post to Apple). As I say they've been accepting them for 10 months now yet keep telling me they are "unacceptable". The intent was to do just what you mention - establish a new contract through acceptance.

 

Jo

 

I understand it is difficult to switch from one train of thought to another....however, you have already clearly grasped the understanding that there is something not quite right - you have also understood that there is statute available to protect your interest...the issue is you chose the wrong statute.....that does not represent the 'end of the world' so's to speak.

 

Remember an appeal concerns a finding that the 'decision' of the lower court is wrong....i.e you say s.2...the decision says....nope....the higher court will uphold that 'decision' because like I said before s.2 does not apply to deeds......and you are looking to shoehorn the courts into accepting that a 'offer' is the 'agreement'..... if you have been granted an oral hearing, but have not yet derived permission to appeal...this suggests that ...your oral hearing is for you to argue the points set out in your written submissions of appeal....if s.2 is in that... the likelihood is that you will face the 'helden'. 'eagle star' decisions.....possibly even 'lamb'.......because like her you also mentioned the 'registration gap'........

 

As we extend our knowledge.......You need to understand that the 'agreement' for land purposes relates to the validity of that there 'mortgage deed' - in other words.....the 'mortgage deed' IS the 'agreement' - it is the 'agreement' that needs to be signed by you in solemn form (witnessed) and executed by the Lender in solemn form also.....you have incorrectly stated that the offer is the 'agreement' it isn't..... the LAW says the creation of an interest in land must be by 'deed' (LRA s.52 (1).....not by way of an 'offer'.....that 'deed' must not be a 'mortgage' LRA s.23(1)(a) and not a legal sub-mortgage (LRA s.23 (2)(b).....the law prevents you having any statutory power to grant a deed by charge by way of legal mortgage.....because it has the same legal presumptions of a 'mortgage by demise and a legal sub-mortgage)......

 

When it comes to the Lenders execution.....it is not s.2 that applies ......You should be at least talking Companies Act 2006 section 46.......analogous to LPA 1925 s.74 etc.......RRO 2005 and the LPMPA 1989 s.1 (2) as AMENDED

 

When it comes to your signature....it is LPMPA 1989 s.1(3) as amended........and tied in to the RRO 2005.....and a finding that the law removes any presumption of delivery on your part.....you cannot grant, assume and deliver the deed.....see 'bibby'.....lender can't circumvent the law...see 'garguillo'.....

 

That's just a brief outline......

 

You already have the general picture.... you just need to get the correct statute in place......and frame an oral argument that to see if you can get the judge in the appeal court to find that it would be unjust and a perversion of law to allow the lower court decision to stand against the public/personal interest......the law must prevail.....not unscrupulous lending common practices....

 

Let me know your thoughts?

 

Apple

[applecart]

I must be getting old, I had to google FWIW ;-)

 

I am sure the decisions of the Property Chamber with regard to the two cases held last week will be posted in this thread in due time - It would appear from the responses previously posted by UNRAM and IS IT ME? from the Property Chamber that the decision of those two cases may be applied to the remaining (as of the date of the FOI response request) 7 applications and any subsequent applications. Therefore, the Property Chamber should be writing to the remaining applicants very shortly, to at the very least to notify them of the findings of the Property Chamber in those cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whilst I consider it very unlikely, for the sake of the applicant's, I hope it is a positive outcome

 

Ben

 

It is a difficult call I think Ben.....When you consider the LAW.....I can't see how the Chamber cannot find in the Applicants favor.....but, then as you always say 'plan for the worst' - which we did...we used the LAW...and 'hope for the best'......WE DO .... We have every expectation that the LAW will prevail.

 

You have to remember any adverse decision would be 'appealed'......so we still can't at this stage - pre-judge the eventual outcome.....or when that 'final' decision will happen.

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Jotho

 

I confess, I have never understood a concept that essentially says on the one hand...I suspect the agreement is void.....so here's a payment to keep it going.....until we can agree in a court of law that it either is or isn't void......amazing......absolutely amazing......in my mind you are say it's void....here's my claim against you.....for you to prove me wrong......and until you do......let's be fair here....I'll put the alleged money due to you to one side....and if I'm wrong, I'll pay you......until then......I stand to prejudice my own claim???

 

But I do understand also, the difference between those who are simply looking to say....oooh look.....I don't have to pay...that Applecart.....says the deed is void......that's enough for me.....cancel that Direct Debit.....I have no idea what it is all about..... I couldn't argue the case if I was asked to.......would be totally wrong.....and would not assist them keep their home at all......this is a serious issue, that must be addressed with due diligence and understanding.........this is not about ...can't afford to pay...and your only defence is 'Apple says the deed is void....so, I can get away with paying'.......would be no defence at all

 

Apple

[applecart]

May I also quickly point out......it is LRA section 32 that says no 'charge' (notice) on the title of any register is valid if the underlying agreement ('mortgage' deed) is void.

 

The 'mortgage' deed is void because - a) it grants a 'mortgage'....borrowers have no power to grant a 'mortgage' of a registered estate.....

 

The Deed is void because the lender has not executed it (the Agreement) to which lpmpa 1989 applies and correlates with his duty to do so under CA 2006 s.46 (1)

 

The Deed is further void due to the fact that the borrower cannot both 'grant' 'assume' and 'deliver' the deed by virtue of signing it and it therefore is not a binding 'agreement'.....and by virtue of LRA s.32 on its strict application....the 'charge' is apt to be rectified......

 

Hope this titbit helps?

 

Apple

[jotho]

Hi Apple. When I set up the £20 payments I was fighting this case on the fact that the offer document had been switched and so arrears could not legally be established. No arrears, no possession. I was using s2 to say the offer didn't comply therefore couldn't be used to establish the arrears. When I referred to your #77 post above I was picking up on where you said s.2 DID apply to the Offer. If that were the case I would need to go no further - I would be home and dry as mine doesn't comply. I needed to show that I was paying something or arrears would be automatically established. I was trying to hold them off on the unestablished amounts. How could they say I'm in arrears when they have nothing valid saying how much I should be paying. It was definitely a debateable tactic and I did make sure I referred to it in my defence as "erring on the side of honour even though they have not proven any enforceable contract with me".

 

If I am now switching tacks to show the deed is invalid my previous arguments are going to haunt me for sure. Is it acceptable for me to say hey I've just found something new that shows the DJ's decision is wrong but not for the reasons I thought? I thought that was not allowed.

 

Btw thank you so much for sketching out the argument again. It is sinking in - albeit slowly. Your last post really helped. I am amazed at your patience.

 

I am stuck on the "assuming the deed" bit at the mo. Can't seem to find any references to what that is about. Is it that if there is no presumption of delivery then there must be proof of delivery like signing for a registered letter? I don't understand what assuming means in this context and who says it has to have happened? I also am getting conflicting views on who has to sign the speciality contract. Could you point me to the statute?

 

Thanks again.

 

Jo

[applecart]

Yes, it is confusing me too

 

Is It Me's friends situation did not concern an argument to do with s.2.......???

 

The mind boggles......

 

Apple

 

I've looked at #77 - it is true; Jotho is correct.....it was sent to Is It Me and it did speak of the Mortgage Offer as being the document used to induce the borrower into signing the deed.....on the premise that the 'offer' could be 'shoehorned' to be the 'agreement'......it stands out like a sore thumb amongst all the content to do with the deed......Jotho was right to pick up on it.....but was wrong to assume that #77 represented the main thrust of this thread.......

 

Jotho - you are now regrettablly in a position where you are having to fight your way back from having mis-interpreted the main thrust of this thread....tell me....did you get to #77 and stop reading?......it's important for others to know......because this is not a 'quick fix' thread......it is not a template.....further #77 does not speak of the registration gap.......but the registration gap may appear on this thread.......Jotho....did you pick up on the registration gap on this thread?......

 

To be fair; your situation presents one of the issues that A1 pointed out.....those who are looking to jump the fence but before the farmer opens the gate and doesn't understand what is going on on the other side of the gate......

 

We are now on #4510........you will find that there has been no return or very little return to conversations to do with the mortgage offer being the 'agreement'......the thread is 'progressive'......this is why it is imperative that viewers of this thread take time out to read it all......the main point of the content on this thread is to do with the deed......viewers need to understand that the written submission did not speak of or rely on the 'mortgage offer' at all.......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me

 

There is little gain in pointing out the errors on the mortgage offer - It is a a 'technicality' in relation to the spelling of your friends name - which can be easily corrected - a court of law has power to correct spelling mistakes - likewise if the address is wrong, but the title plan and title number are correct - it can be corrected due to being considered a 'technicality' - that the Registrar has the power to correct quite easily...

 

Keep the validity of the Deed at the forefront of your mind - an invalid deed cannot be corrected as a mere 'technicality'

 

Keep in mind that a Deed that is void for want of formality is not cured by estoppal in other words - it will not be cured by simply correcting a mistake in the registered title info

 

Again, I hope this helps?

 

Apple

 

Jotho....see by the time we had got to even #100....how things had progressed above........we were at all times focused on the deed......how on earth you managed to pick out one post out of over 4.000 and hone in on it in the way you have is boggling......

 

At least others will learn that they need to read 'everything' to understand that this thread is about the deed.....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Ya Jotho

 

'assume' - reference to assuming the deed is found in the 'bibby' decision - if my memory serves me well.

 

Apple

[sequenci]

Morning Apple, would you mind telling us when the rest of these cases are being heard at the chamber? [that's, of course, if you know]

 

Ta,

 

Seq.

[jotho]

Hi Apple. Me honing in on #77 just shows how fixated my brain has become on s.2 over the past months. It is accutely tuned to pick up anything that supports the argument and demonstrate "I knew I was right all along". I believe I have understood the theme of the thread from the off - hence my apologies in my first post about veering off track. I appear to still be doing it though. Apologies again. That's definitely it now on s.2.

 

I have read the full thread more than once and each time something new comes into focus. I shall continue doing this until this stops happening. Then I will know I've finally got it.

 

Void Mortgage sent me the registration gap analysis. Lamb I got from here - too late. I have only picked up this thread in the last week. I shall go back to Bibby for the assuming. Thanks again.

 

Jo

[applecart]

Morning Apple, would you mind telling us when the rest of these cases are being heard at the chamber? [that's, of course, if you know]

 

Ta,

 

Seq.

 

Morning Sequenci

 

I do not work for the Chamber, so, apologies I do not have ' inside' information as regards the cases they are dealing with..... it would be helpful if I did.....I'm as anxious to see and know what's going on just the same like everyone else.

 

I presume the applications are going quite well....we are over 8 mths into the OP's application being sent so far without notice of anything adverse being said.........but then I'm a positive thinking individual ; )

 

It's anyone's call really....

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Apple. Me honing in on #77 just shows how fixated my brain has become on s.2 over the past months. It is accutely tuned to pick up anything that supports the argument and demonstrate "I knew I was right all along". I believe I have understood the theme of the thread from the off - hence my apologies in my first post about veering off track. I appear to still be doing it though. Apologies again. That's definitely it now on s.2.

 

I have read the full thread more than once and each time something new comes into focus. I shall continue doing this until this stops happening. Then I will know I've finally got it.

 

Void Mortgage sent me the registration gap analysis. Lamb I got from here - too late. I have only picked up this thread in the last week. I shall go back to Bibby for the assuming. Thanks again.

 

Jo

 

Hi Jo; Thanks for your honesty......I think this thread is continually confused with the 'void mortgage' forum.....i think even the chamber believes all the arguments and the statute in support is the same.......when in truth it is actually dealing with 2 different arguments....

 

I can see how it happens, and I can see why you would look for arguments in support of your findings on the Void Mortgages forum here and look to piece the 2 together.....because the thread itself picks up on different 'themes' and 'scenarios'......best to stick to the main arguments to do with the deed....anything else needs to be taken with a bit of 'salt'......regrettably it does mean that you have to read the entire thread to see where we 'came' from and how we got to where we are right now.......the application of Is It Me's friend is still 'live' (this is only said on the understanding that we have not been advised otherwise)....so, the hope is that there will be more detail to be posted as we un-ravel not only if the grounds have 'merit'...but likewise we increase our knowledge and understanding of the chambers practices.....

 

 

Hope this summary also helps for now?

 

Apple

[caro]

Hi Apple. Me honing in on #77 just shows how fixated my brain has become on s.2 over the past months. It is accutely tuned to pick up anything that supports the argument and demonstrate "I knew I was right all along". I believe I have understood the theme of the thread from the off - hence my apologies in my first post about veering off track. I appear to still be doing it though. Apologies again. That's definitely it now on s.2.

 

I have read the full thread more than once and each time something new comes into focus. I shall continue doing this until this stops happening. Then I will know I've finally got it.

 

Void Mortgage sent me the registration gap analysis. Lamb I got from here - too late. I have only picked up this thread in the last week. I shall go back to Bibby for the assuming. Thanks again.

 

Jo

 

Hi Jotho I suggest that you start your own thread with all your information as it will make it easier for everyone to see your progress to date and advise if they can. I'm afraid you can't appeal on the grounds of providing wrong information in your defence, but with more information there may be other options.

[bigphil61]

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your-society/treasury/wholesale_funding/securitisation.html

 

The above is a link to all of the documentation. If anyone wants to read the applicable documentation, you have to click on agree and then on transaction documents. You can then select whichever Brass you are interested in and take it from there

 

Hi Ben, Do you have or know of any links to any other lenders securitisation documents? In particular Cheltenham & Gloucester or Lloyds....BP